Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, February 8, 2005


The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

---

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

See if they publish it.

Hit the ignore thread button and go on your way.

The fellow so exercised by this article states he and others promoting their own conspiracist views work to expose yet others promoting their own such claims different from his as agents of disinformation; those, if queried, would doubtless claim they work hard to expose the disinformation this fellow and his ilk spread. And so the world turns....

"We learn from this great work that the versimmillitude of fiction is obtained by exactness of detail."

Since it's available:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

The claims debunked by PM are supposed to "represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism"? Not hardly, and the editors don't claim to be debunking everything. That's something Hoffman misrepresents.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims (not all, just 16 of the most prevalent) made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

The sixteen the editors chose were:


The Missile Pod (it was just the right fairing of the aircraft)

Stand-down Order Issued? (no)

No Windows? (reporter didn't see strike, just flyover briefly)

Frequent Intercepts? (no - Stewart plane only civilian intercept in decade before 9/11, and that took 1 hour 22 minutes)

Damage 80 Stories Below Impact? (yes - debris severed utility shafts, and elevators plummeted to the ground floor, bringing fire with them)

Fire Not Hot Enough To Melt Steel? (yes, and it didn't need to)

The "Squibs"? (pancaking shot air, concrete, and debris out windows)

Seismic "Spikes"? (misreading the graphs - longer time span shows growing rumble before collapse, not a sudden spike)

WTC7 Controlled Demolition? (standard progressive collapse due to damage and raging fire - "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.)

Hole Too Small At Pentagon? (initial impact was 75 feet across, not 16, and the A-C corridor hole was 12, probably caused by the landing gear)

Intact Windows Close To Impact (well, they were blast resistant)

No Debris? (Allyn E. Kilsheimer says otherwise)

The White Jet at Flight 93 Site? (business plane contacted when at 3000 to 4000 ft to check out site)

Engine Miles Away? (an engine fan found 300 yards from crash site)

Debris In Indian Lake? (no body parts, only light debris blown there by wind)

Gibney F-16 Pilot That Shot Down 93? (nope, was shuttling someone to Albany, NY at the time)

As you can see, it's a pretty fair representation of most 9/11 claims. It's by no means all of them, but the ones that they do address, they debunk quite handily. Don't confuse my summation of the debunking with the complete arguments and evidence from the PM article. You should go and read the actual article itself.

That the actual interest in examining all facts of the matter is considerably overstated by some here....

For reference (article page here):

Air Crash Analysis
-Cleveland Center regional air traffic control
-Bill Crowley special agent, FBI
-Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants
-Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.
-Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes
-Ed Jacoby Jr. director, New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)
-Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority
-Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
-Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)
-Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA
-Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center
-Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.
-James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
-Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office
-Jeff Pillets senior writer, The Record, Hackensack, NJ
-Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service
-Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
-Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer, 119th Wing, North Dakota Air National Guard
-Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
-Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander, U.S. Air Force
-Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer, Tyndall Air Force Base
-Boston Center regional air traffic control
-Laura Brown spokeswoman, Federal Aviation Administration
-Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation
-Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board
-Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board
-Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command
-Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer, Andrews AFB
-Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command
-John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org
-Hank Price spokesman, Federal Aviation Administration
-Warren Robak RAND Corp.
-Bill Shumann spokesman, Federal Aviation Administration
-Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB
-Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
-Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology
-Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman
-Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert
-Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
-Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center
-Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF) director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
-William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill
-W. Gene Corley Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director, FEMA Probe Team
-Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group
-Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week
-Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.
-Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University
-Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness
-Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics, University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
-Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction
-David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
-Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.
-Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee
-Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety
-John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team
-Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts
-Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University
-Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
-Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
-William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA
-John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor
-Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director, Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University
-James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee
-Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash
-Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
-Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon
-Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University
-Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology
-Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University
-Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California, San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology
</snip>


It's quite a list - sure seems like a lot of knowledgeable people.

What you have taken for a list of expert witnesses is in reality a mere list of paid disinformation agents working for the "Hidden Hand"....

"I like persons better than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything else in the world."

I have heard whispered in various dark shadows of the internets that the letters "Ph.D" really stand for "Perpetrator of Horrific Deeds" - the title of those members of the innermost inner circle of that nefarious organization, S.P.E.C.T.E.R.!

As you can see from the evidence above, the "Popular Mechanics" (or should we say "Propagandistic Mutterings") article was backed by a number of these insidious individuals.



Trust no one!
:paranoia: (too bad we don't really have that emoticon)

Ernst Stavro Blofeld....

You have hit upon it, Sir, the ur-source of the "army of twenty-five thousand mercenaries" that is the cause of all the world's current difficulties....

"And he strikes, like Thunderball...."

That Popular Mechanics article is as about as thorough as a fourth grade Weekly Reader.

It seems appropriate for the level of technical sophistication one might find on a political message board.

It's doesn't really go into appropriate detailed analysis of many subjects which is absolutely necessary to cover the different areas with any sense of expertise.

For example,according to PM,the landing gear caused the 12 foot hole in the A-E drive because ASCE said so. That isn't near enough to convince this layperson.

I didn't suggest it covered the issue adequately, nor did I suggest that it would be sufficient to convince you.

Will the NIST report (which will qualify as a detailed analysis in my book) be sufficient to convince you when it is finished this summer (if it stays on schedule)?

... I would like to know if you also will deal with the "Black Box Question" of flight 93 there.

Quite a lot of people find it suspicious that theese Black Boxes are not released to the PUBLIC.

Nearly nobody knows that this would break US law, and the pilots association (ALPA) already made a lot of trouble because the tape was played to the families (it will surely go to court if the FBI will release the tape to the public). ALPA has got more than 60.000 members.

The 911 report only quotes some of the content of the Voice recorder.

The pilots association refuses to release the tapes:
FBI Plays UAL Flight 93 CVR Tapes Over ALPA Objections:
http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentId=337

See also here: http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=397

May be there are some more reasons not to release the tape (proceeding against Zacarias Moussaoui?).

And of course there are some other tapes online, for example the Betty Ong call or the tape of the Controllers of Boston (with the voice of Atta).

But all in all, this is still quite unknown, and it would be fine if you could give more details about this matter.

Tobias

Occasionally I will resort to colloquialisms. I was not referring to a literal book, but rather that the NIST report will be, in my opinion, a detailed analysis. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

There have been a few threads about the black boxes here in this forum. Here are a few of the more recent threads:

Were hijackers flying the 9/11 planes?

What was going on in Portland?

To Those For, and Against, MIHOP, Please Kindly Help

I just did a search for "black box" in the September 11 forum - there are a whopping 91 threads with this phrase.

Will the NIST report (which will qualify as a detailed analysis in my book) be sufficient to convince you when it is finished this summer (if it stays on schedule)?

NIST is a government sponsored agency. They don't permit themselves to consider causes beyond those stated by government fiat.

You begin with a predisposition that everything is a lie. This explains your energetic rummaging through trifles, and attempts to promote misapprehensions and distortions to the status of evidence your predisposition is the truth....

"Many people think they are thinking when really all they are doing is re-arranging their prejudices."

I got it.

For the government is the only organization with the resources available to conduct a detailed analysis of the events of September 11th. Everything else is just speculation, and all the googling in the world can't replace actual investigation. I am confident that none of us here can duplicate the effort done by the NIST and associated groups/persons, as much as we may want to do so.

They start with a constricted idea of culpability. You don't start with pointing to the guilty party and then molding your findings around this set premise.

And...all the evidence has been removed or destroyed. The first thing the government needs to do is to allow independent investigators access to the building where the plane parts are stored.

It's all controlled. Can't you see that?

I don't think the NIST (or the associated investigators) were biased in their investigation. One need not consider all possibilities when exploring the cause of an event - only the rational ones need to be considered. I don't think the evidence for several of the theories discussed in this forum is sufficient enough to warrant consideration. However, there are a number of theories regarding the collapse sequence of the WTC that must be investigated, and I think the NIST is methodical and unbiased in this regard.

What evidence, exactly, do you think has been destroyed? The structural steel from the WTC? And why would the government need to allow independent investigators access to evidence? It certainly isn't public domain material, and while I think it would be nice to have independent confirmation it isn't required of the government (which means that you shouldn't expect it).

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "It's all controlled." Perhaps I have too much faith in my fellow engineers, but I don't think that the thousands of them involved have all agreed to comply with a fraudulent investigation. There are some royal bastards in our government, but their ability to coerce is limited.

The investigation starts with the unproven premise that Arab hijackers flew the planes into the buildings. There is no room for any other inquiry. This is fascist.

Start with the wholly unproven premise that the thing was somehow contrived by elements in the political life and society of the country you dislike, and will admit of no other possibility. This is fascist.

"Many people think they are thinking when really all they are doing is re-arranging their prejudices."

Theories that differ from the one stated in your post are not considered plausible.

This is not my problem. If you want people to consider alternatives then present sufficient robust evidence that supports your theories.

They aren't considered plausible because in "official" circles they aren't considered.

Would you mind explaining a little more what you mean by "official" circles?

You are naive,aren't you.

You put the word "official" in quotes, so I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

And are you referring to the main-stream media circles, government circles, professional organization circles - which? All of these could possibly referred to as "official" circles.



Would you rather I made assumptions about what you mean than ask for clarification? :shrug:

Very few people have the guts to step up and put their careers on the line. Wasn't there someone from NIST or FEMA that did that? He questioned the validity of the argument that the fires in the WTCs would burn hot enough to radically alter the constitution of the steel. When his criticism became public,he was fired the very next day.

He was wrong.

He was from Underwriter's Laboratories, to answer your question.

So in your OPINION he was wrong. Therefore he should be fired?

He was so wrong, that he jeopardised his career by publicly stating what he believed to be true. And then he was fired.

I live in a small town in Northern CA. Veery conservative. 75% Republican. Wally Herger territory. If I spoke my mind about my ideas,I would possibly risk physical assault and I certainly would be ostrasized by the community as a whole.

My ideas stop here. What does that tell you? What does that tell you about the "professional community"?

It is a fact that he was wrong.

I do not know why he was fired. I do not personally believe that it is right to fire someone for this sort of behavior, but there may have been something going on that we are not aware of.

I know about the "professional community". What exactly are you asking?


For reference, here are the Kevin Ryan/Underwriter's Laboratories threads:

Kevin Ryan od UL FIRED for questioning government WTC collapse story!

WTC collapse : Not caused by melting steel says U.L.

Investigators simulate WTC floor fire

There may be more, but that's all I could find.

The question of temperature's effect on steel, like the best ten movies of the year, or the greatest boxer of all time, is but a matter of opinion, in which one man's opinion is equally valid as anyone elses? There cannot actually be an established body of objective fact in such a question, can there?

in charge of projects such as the Hyatt Regency Walkway in Kansas City.

In vain, of course.

....he was so wrong!

9/11/01

<09:23> <Commonman> a second explosion inside the building now.....

<13:28> <bobby44> there were reports of a bomb blast in the WTC, near the lobby, around the time of the second plane crash

http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.FinancialChat.20010911.txt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When heated, the tensile strength (and compressive strength) of steel decreases. It has been measured and documented. There is no room for opinion.

I have never claimed to be clever or quick, but I do warn you that calling someone obtuse might be construed as a violation of DU rules.

that are patently false

Whether it was on purpose or intended I can't tell you. But I can tell you his remarks regarding the testing procedures showed he did not have a clue how those procedures are used. He also partook in a bit of sophistry by taking two differnt parts of the NIST report, combining them is way that implied something untrue.

Yes they are all playing by the same rules. Same script.

You start with the belief this thing was done somehow by elements in the country's political life and society you disapprove of, and, "pointing to the guilty party" at the start, you mold your "findings" accordingly.

Who do you imagine these "independent investigators" should be, by the way? Yourself, and the proprietor of "Let's Roll", perhaps, or your French friend with the outre and wholly unfeasible "shaped charge" combination...?

"My Noble Lord requires of you three thousand ounces of silver yearly. Otherwise I will be compelled to quarter my braves on your garanaries."

The demolition of a false argument or a misapprehension is, like the felling of a tree, best accomplished by action directed as close to the root as can be contrived. You seem to want to fight this out leaf by leaf, and while stripping every leaf from a tree will eventually bring it down, it is much more efficient to take an axe to the trunk about ground level. Battles are not won by driving in every outpost and contesting every company strong point, but by severing the roots of communication at the basis of the enemy's operations.

You acknowledge you are a layperson in these matters: this is tantamount to a confession you know next to nothing about a subject on which you hold such pronounced views at variance with the great body of professional trained opinion, and constitutes an open admission you have no real ground whatever by which to support those views. If you were involved in some matter that directly touched you, such as a lawsuit that might ruin you, or the constructionm of a home in which you would dwell, would you similarly challenge the expertise of your attorney, or the masons?

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

C.H.A.O.S.

Where's Agent 86 when you need him?

Ought not be slighted over their splendid efforts....

AZCat says:
It's quite a list - sure seems like a lot of knowledgeable people.

Wait until you see a list of all the people who went on record decrying Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Now that, my friend, is A LIST!!!!

What I do remember, however, is the list of people who decried the false pretenses about Saddam and WMD.

Didn't the NYT run a full-page ad with the names of some of those people?

Oh yeah...

And then there are, of course, the people that signed but weren't included (space was at a premium).




I care not a whit if Fox News managed to scare up an idiot or two to back the lies of the Bush Administration; such Lysenkoists will always be around.

is far more impressive than that of the anti-war crowd,
and the proof of that can be seen in Fallujah.

Check the names on that list against the one you provided earlier.
You might impress us both.

As I said in above post, I do not remember seeing such a list, unless you are referring to ones like the signers of the PNAC document. I don't have any way of checking the list above against such a list if I don't know where it is.

And what do you mean by "impressive"? In what way? I consider ElBaradei to be a rather impressive figure and he certainly didn't condone the Bush II War.

Does a list of political figures pushing an administration line have to do with a list of technical experts in the fields of aviation, building engineering, demolition, photgraph interpertaion, etc.? You might do better attempting to produce a contrasting list of credentialled expert witnesses who support the peculiar views espoused here by some; that attempt would at least have some relevance to the point at hand. It would, of course, be a pretty slim list, as the fantasies of such wretches as Ruppert, et al, are without any foundation a knowledgeable person could endorse, and doubtless many cited in it as supporting them would, if contacted, denounce the thing, as being merely compiled on the basis of its preparers having taken statements by them out of context, or their having taken metaphor literally.

"The greatest of follies id the passionate belief in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

that the most deeply indoctrinated individuals in our society are those carrying professional credentials

Fact and reason blow their alternate worlds apart, and it irritates them.

The missile pod..compare photographs

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1821

AND



Notice the location of the "pod" as compared to the right fairing. The "pod" is located too far down the fuselage shaft to be the fairing. It is feet away from the aft point of the wing's interception with the fuselage.Also notice that the shadow cast by the pod is as wide and deep as those cast by the engines.

When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Pods attached to CIVILIAN aaircraft? Well I concur with Culick...that would be bull. Obviously for a pod to be retrofitted on a plane it would have to be on something other than "civilian" aircraft.

It's odd that the two photos apparently show a different location. What is definitely true though is that the object does not span a distance comparable to the length of the wing fairing.What we see here may be a reflection of piping that extends farther up the fuselage.

http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html

That site has 757 pictures from another angle, that show the fairing extending well past the wing, exactly where your cherished pod is. Your cherrypicked photo seems convincing, but try looking at all angles.

It's all in the size of the shadow which is comparable to the wings' shadow size. It's all in the piping that stretches the entire length of the fuselage. The more angles that you look at the object,the more you are reinforced to the fact that it is too short in length and too wide in circumferance to be the wing's fairing.

You clearly do not devote much time to looking at photographs of aeroplanes....

You teach em that one bolo?

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

From "the war on Terrorism is Bogus",the Guardian Sept 6 2003

There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft(AP,August 13 2002). It is a legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan,fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

The PM article clearly says that the only intercept flown over North America was the Payne Stewart plane. Anything else was limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones. Your quote from the Guardian is counting those ADIZ intercepts. The legal requirement is for ADIZs only, and before 9/11, there was no domestic ADIZ.

So, you were saying?

documentation?

I offered a rational hypothesis of how both statements can be interpreted as true without contradicting each other. One statement said intercepts had been flown, and the other said only over offshore zones. The two statements don't contradict each other.

That doesn't require documentation - all it requires is the ability to see that the two statements don't contradict each other.

I believe you are wrong that there was no domestic intercepts of wayward planes prior to 9-11. Prove me wrong.

Let's get it clear what's being claimed, instead of a straw man you're setting up.

The article says that in the decade before 9/11, there was only one domestic intercept - Payne Stewart's plane. All other intercepts were offshore.

I've already proved everything I can - that the two statements don't contradict each other. However, to prove that there were no other domestic intercepts during that decade is proving a negative, which I won't attempt. I think it makes more sense that you come up with a pattern of domestic intercepts before 9/11.

Come on, you know you want to.

When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy(hijacking) emergency, the DDO(Deputy Director of Operations),NMCC(National Military Command Center),will:
(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not the DDO,NMCC,will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defence for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15,paragraph D.7(ReferenceD).

(2) If suitable assets from a unified command or NORAD are not reasonably available, the DOD,NMCC,will coordinate with the appropriate Military Service operations center to provide military assistance.

-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Instruction,CJCSI 3610.01A
Aircraft Piracy(Hijacking) and Destruction of
Derelict Airborne Objects, 1 June 2001

So that's relevant to showing any domestic intercepts besides Payne Stewart in the decade before 9/11 how?

There was a military protocol for responding to pirated planes in place prior to 911. This makes the Payne Stewart argument valid or not moot.

A protocol in place does not constitute evidence of a protocol ever observed.

You put two quotes together as if they contradicted each other. I showed you how those two quotes could quite legitimately be seen as not contradicting each other.

Now you're talking about how protocol changed in June 2001. That doesn't affect the basic assertion that the Payne Stewart intercept was the only domestic intercept by military planes in the decade before 9/11.

I've asked you to provide evidence that there was a pattern of domestic intercepts in the decade before 9/11. You respond with this protocol distraction. I take it that by trying to change the subject, you concede the point.

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.



That's some monstrous and wide landing gear. How preposterous! This 12 foot wide concentric hole was not made by a landing gear. The fact is that the ASCE is just as much at a loss as to what caused the hole as anyone who embraces the "official" story.

In your post, you state "This 12 foot wide concentric hole was not made by a landing gear."

With what is the hole concentric?

"Concentric" sounds awful highfalutin', and so seems to lend weight and authority to the statement, by attaching to it a technical sort of sound. That is the only reason it is used here. The idea at the root of this line seems to be the idea that an object impacting and breaking through a wall will punch its approximate shape in the wall, like Bluto finally hurled to his star-circled doom by a spinach-chomping Popeye. Of course, it is not the case, as hard objects striking and breaking though a wall tend to create holes either roundish or squarish in shape, depending on the method of construction, regardless of the shape of the object itself.

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and a lightening bug."

My father and I have had a similar discussion. He likes to throw the word "fungible" into random conversations (inappropriately) because very few people are familiar with its definition. He never gets a reaction.

Its a sneaky, elitist thing to do, but it is one of his few vices so we don't complain.

You really believe that a landing gear made that huge hole? Can you scientifically explain that to me.

Not whether I could explain "scientifically" the creation of the hole.

Look - I'm not going to give you a hard time if you used a word incorrectly.

I just want to know what you meant. Is the hole actually concentric with anything, and if so - what?

A landing gear is a pretty sturdy object: in this case, it must be able to support its share of a hundred tonnes of so of weight, and doubtless will be designed to be capable of supporting a good deal more, to allow for the possible extra stresses it would need to support in case of a hard landing. Such an object, moving at a speed of several hundred feet per second, would deliver a tremendous blow against any resisting surface it impacted against, and in doing so, function not too differently from a kinetic energy armor piercing round, with some allowance made for innefficient shape. The distress to the resisting structure struck would radiate out from the chiefest point of impact, and dispersing equally in all directions, would tend to produce a circular pattern of crumbling. In a masonry structure, there might be straighter edges, as the damage would be contained within particular blocks, and the greatest harm to integrity done along lines of the less sturdy material of the mortar joining them.

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

hits wall makes hole.

Your economy, Sir, is to be commended....

"My brain hurts...!"

I checked the URL and was given a "Request Timeout". I will check back later, but if it is still not working would you mind posting another version?

the gear assembly.

Here's your culprit. Such a mighty fellow.

There are three Assemblies, one nose and two outboard. The wing gear is substantially larger than the nose, with four tires rather than two. But I'm sure you thought of that.

Yes. But where are they? No photographic record of landing gear debris specifically located in the A-E Drive. And the landing gear was retracted into the fuselage. That's a broad supposition to assume that a plane that exploded immediately at the front of the building would create a specific powerful force with landing gear content to blow out a hole into the A-E drive. A hole disproportionately large for "landing gear".

Part of the engine was found in the building other than the A-E Drive. Why didn't that engine make it through the C-ring? Why would you absolutely assume that a landing gear would when the engine didn't? You're taking a supposition(however weak) and positing it as fact.

It is more reasonable to assume that the explosion would cause a fury of flame and a dispersal of plane parts in a chaotic and violently disintegrating manner.

The ASCE supposition is just that... a supposition. After all,it has to be explained by a plane part or the whole Fascist Government fiat explodes.

That is what makes all this so difficult to simulate - it's a dynamic fluid/solid/impact/thermal/combustion problem with some nasty transients - highly nonlinear and very difficult to set up, let alone solve.

If it is chaotic then why the hole in the first place or why aren't there more holes?

If it is difficult to solve then why do you embrace the simplicity of an ASCE statement that it was the landing gear? There again making a supposition based on the intentionally constricted premise that it absolutely had to be caused by the explosion of jet fuel from Flight 77.

Perhaps I have not been clear - "chaotic" has a particular meaning. It describes nonlinear dynamic systems that are sensitive to initial conditions.

When have I stated support (or opposition to) the landing gear theory? I was waiting for you to clarify your use of "concentric" before I said anything.

......long after the plane had hit........


<Diogenes> We just had a HUGE SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS somewhere near where I live.....

<10:11> <Diogenes>Alexandria

<10:13> <Diogenes> Sorry all... I was on the phone...

<10:13> <hot> second explosion at pentagon!!!

<10:13> <dumper> @nd explosin at pent.

<10:13> <ResearcherA1> pentagon 2nd expl.

http://www.financialchat.com/chat_logs/ActiveTrader.FinancialChat.20010911.txt

Must have BEEN that landing gear perforating through the west wall........
....and then circling back to make the outer wall collapse....

then I think it is absurd.

If you are making a joke, then what is your point? What do secondary explosions have to do with the initial events?


Edit: grammar

....but i fail to get yours.......you know the one about the landing gear causing that hole....

But if you would take care to re-read the posts above, you would notice that I have not supported (or opposed) any theory related to the hole or the landing gear.

Perhaps your questions would be better served if they were asked of others.

.....that there were secondary explosions within the Pentagon.....

And there ain't a damn thing either you,Maggy or Vince can do to refute it.

When have I disputed evidence of said explosions? (although that doesn't mean that I waive the right to do so in the future)

What does that have to do with any of this? Please, explain, so that I have some idea of what your point is.

Understanding the physics of inertia produces the reasonable expectation that the great bulk of the damage is done by the impact of great mass at high velocity. You are the person who imagines anyone else to be maintaining the damage was mostly inflicted by the detonation of fuel. You do so as a species of strawman exercise, for you have some small awareness fuel explosions, as a class among possible types of explosions, are not particularly powerful, and since your especial hobby horse is the idea that there was some sort of shaped-charge contrivance in whatever struck the Pentagon, you seek to misrepesent the case made by those opposing you, so you can the predicate for crying, "Ah-hah! But a fuel explosion couldn't have done that! But my magic concentric and tandem sequentially exploding shaped charges could have! What do you say to that, Fascists!?!"

"People really are that transpatent."

Gee if Flight 77's landing gear could cause such damage.......

Then what about the tail when it impacted the free way sign.....

The tail of the jet clipped an overhanging exit sign above me on it's way down. Then it slammed into the Pentagon wall.The overhanging exit sign that the jet hit on the way down was 15-20 feet above the ground. The jet came in low and fast, it's tail clipped the overhanging exit sign on the way in, before hitting the Pentagon wall.
Vin Narayanan
USA today journalist.

So show me the destruction caused by the mass at high velocity.....o'reputable one.....

In the hurried impressions of startled witnesses is a wonderment....

"A stroll through the lunatic asylum will suffice to show faith proves nothing."

....my dear Magistrate......

....just the testimony........and your startled reactions to them.....

You should avoid games of chance and skill in which money changes hands, at all costs....

"Children make the best opponents at Scabble, as they are both easy to beat and fun to cheat."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While I doubt that my opinion matters much to you, I would rather you linked your information from other sources. Sometimes I like to check out links and I am not going to click on that one.

Would not alter in the slightest the mass or velocity of the piece of metal in question.

The greatest portion of destructive force against the building was provided not by the detonation of fuel, but by the impetus of the high velocity mass. You evidently have some difficuklty appreciating the power of this, and perhaps some combination of school failure and limited experience is at the root of the difficulty you seem to experience with it.

Yes. But where are they? I would guess they ended up in the Pentagon.

No photographic record of landing gear debris specifically located in the A-E Drive. Perhaps, perhaps not. Name another crash that has detailed photographic record posted for public purview.

And the landing gear was retracted into the fuselage. A fuselage that began to disintegrate as soon as it hit the building.

That's a broad supposition to assume that a plane that exploded immediately at the front of the building would create a specific powerful force with landing gear content to blow out a hole into the A-E drive.
Not really when you figure momentum.

A hole disproportionately large for "landing gear".
disproportionate to what? That wall was neither fortified nor had any load bearing I-beams, so it can be expected that a large object hitting it at high speed could knock out an area larger than the object hitting it.

Part of the engine was found in the building other than the A-E Drive. Why didn't that engine make it through the C-ring? Who knows? A building is hardly a homogeneous solid.

Why would you absolutely assume that a landing gear would when the engine didn't? You're taking a supposition(however weak) and positing it as fact.

Hardly, your assuming that both objects would encounter the same obstacles during their journeys through the building.

It is more reasonable to assume that the explosion would cause a fury of flame and a dispersal of plane parts in a chaotic and violently disintegrating manner.

Not if you realized that fuel explosions are relatively slow expanding when compared to high-order explosives, and while visually spectacular, do not carry much punch. The force of momentum would be much greater.

The ASCE supposition is just that... a supposition. After all,it has to be explained by a plane part or the whole Fascist Government fiat explodes.
:shrug:

You got them cornered.....

And....

Looks like Maggy,Vince and Cat are desperetely trying to consult their ACSE report for protection......

They need not bother......

This was the best the ACSE could come up with.......

There was a hole in the east wall of ring C ,emerging into A-E drive between columns 5 and 7 in wedge 2.
The wall failure was approximetly 310ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building
ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

Dewd .........

Looks like Vince,Maggy and TheCat are as blind as..........

his post was easy enough to pick apart without ASCE.

You said as much as the ACSE report.......

Nothing.

SFB

So tell me Vince.......

Why the ACSE also fails to mention what made the tips of the wings disintegrate before impact with the walls.......just so it could fit conveniently into that hole....

Just for the record.

Vince believes in LHO official JFK explanation.

Vince doesn't believe that the US is imperialistic.

:toast:

Vince believes in LHO official JFK explanation.

Absolutely. I have never seen any credible evidence of any other shooter than LHO.

Vince doesn't believe that the US is imperialistic.

Not by your simplistic definition.

BTW I also believe we landed on the moon. :silly:

they just didn't penetrate. When you look at how relatively delicate and fragile the wing tips are, in addition to the fact that they are full of fuel that would have exploded the wing tips to bitty pieces, it is perfectly logical that they would not have penetrated the thick Pentagon walls. Did you honestly expect to see a perfect silhouette of an airplane neatly punched through the wall?

So what punched out all those columns in such a way that it appears that the wings could have done it?

By the way, I agree with you that the wings were obliterated at the entry point.

punched out quite a few columns.

Those delicate wing tips only hit 5 lampoles first.......!

Try again......

Hollow aluminum poles vs a reinforced building - it is perfectly reasonable to think that the wing tips could have clipped the lampoles without exploding or disintegrating. The wing tips were stronger than the poles but weaker than the wall.

on edit: Don't also forget that highway lampoles are designed to easily break/fall during an impact in order to protect the occupants of any car that might hit them.

Hack says.....

The wall was marked where the wing tips hit ..

Trouble is Hack, my friend......

Is that the noble ACSE disagrees with you...

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with the eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and cause debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

Now....

Show me the scars on the facade......

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

You can clearly see non-penetrating damage to the walls caused by the wings.

.....but the noble ASCE seems to imply that the damage was caused by what was left of the already depleted wings......not the tips of these same wings...

Why is that?

Just so I understand exactly what we are arguing about - is it your contention that a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon? What is the significance of a few feet of wingtip being missing?

.......that I have not got a fucking clue as to what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11..........thanks in no way to the ASCE and (supposed de-bunker-par exellance)Sarah Roberts....

Regarding the wings tips........

The left and right wing tips(between them) downed 5 lampoles...

Then according to the holy ACSE....

The left wing tip met it's demise hitting a vent......

The right wing tip ended it's post lampole-downing life hitting a generator .....

But according to Sarah Roberts the scars on the building were caused by the fragments of these wing tips......something the ASCE makes no mention of....

And you know what......

I don't believe Roberts......and I don't believe the ASCE.......

You can nitpick any report on any subject and find anomalies - it is unreasonable to expect a 100 percent answer, life just doesn't work that way. The issue with most CTrs is that they are unable to forward a plausible alternative to a 757 that could have caused the damage to the Pentagon. There is 140 feet of damage to the wall with a 90 hole in addition to damage that extends hundreds of feet into the building. Even disregarding the hundreds of eyewitnesses, it seems reasonable to me that a 100 ton aircraft flying at over 500 mph and loaded with aviation fuel could have caused the damage we see. Nitpicking about wingtips doesn't change this fundamental fact. You are unable to accept the official reports yet you are equally unable to propose an alternative that can account for the physical evidence. Lets be blunt - I could care less about what you think about Bushco, BFEE, CIA or the myriad cast of evil doers willing to murder their fellow citizens - if you are unable to propose a scenario that doesn't defy physics or logic, you are simply another bystander blinded by his hatred and mistrust and not contributing anything to the discussion.

That does not cut it.....

You just do what all OCT's do when presented with these anomolies....

You categorize it as nit picking.


So fl77 was flying at 500mph , huh?

Not to fast for a 73 year old woman to observe ....

"It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. "
(Christine Patterson)

Oh....

You forgot about the freeway sign that managed to withstand fl77's tail.....

"The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. "
(Vin Narayanan)

Did it now?......



Oh yeah........

You also forgot about the helicopter that fl77 managed to avoid aswell......

"I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky."
CNN.



I heard a helicopter landing right outside our window and turned to watch it touchdown ...the helo pad is there and I wondered as I watched him land if this arrival had anything to do with the New York attack realizing it probably did not. I turned back to the computer and began reading the only breaking news report I had found about the attack. I was shocked in realizing what sort of hell must be taking place inside those towers.... Two hits and thousands of lives
snuffed out in seconds....

In that moment, I heard the most sensational noise.... a split second of high pitched whine followed by a booming echoing crash like nothing I have ever witnessed. The next few seconds seemed so much longer and are constantly replayed in my mind... I remember yelling out as I found myself on the floor and somehow being pushed against the wall.... glass and debris rained down on top of me as I came to the stark realization that it was happening to us as well...At that moment, I knew it was coming through and I quickly thought it strange that this might actually be it...The next second I was wondering if I could make it under the desk, and wasn't sure it would make a difference anyway.... And then, it suddenly seemed so quiet ...I simply could not believe that I was still there and not hurt...As I stood and turned however, I was met with the horrific sight of a wall of orange flames consuming the view against the window. I could feel the intensity of the heat... The glass had apparently come from the next office over through the false overhead (although I would only determine this later.)

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonPersonalStory.html

......aswell as the fact that those hundreds of other eye-witnesses
failed to mention the existence of this same helicopter...

Despite the fact many of them were trapped in that traffic jam in front of the pentagon before fl77 hit...

I am just gonna carry on nitpicking.....

Tell me what happened? And yes you are nitpicking - there are literally tens of thousands of data points and it is perfectly reasonable to expect anomalies. To be frank - the 95 percent solution is good enough for me. Besides, what is it you wish me to believe? Because YOU believe that Bushco is evil I am expected to accept that they attacked the Pentagon even though you can't advance a coherent theory of how they did it?

Cos' I don't know what happened.....

If anything, you have to explain to me how all of this fits into your beloved official story......

Date Posted: 9/11/01 8:07am Subject: RE: Plane Crashes into World Trade Center
apparently there was NO car bomb at the state department.
Although there was the sound of an explosion, there was no car bomb.
And still 1 plane unaccounted for.

http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community/b10008/4049615/p10

If the sound didn't come from a car bomb..........

Where did that sound come from.....The Pentagon? ....only that sound of an explosion came AFTER fl77 had supposedly hit.....

Also.......

How come that so few of your hundreds of witnesses saw this:

This SECOND PLANE that we saw had 4 engines and was VERY low. I thought it was military, and my first reaction was that it had DROPPED a bomb on the pentagon. We had not heard a plane hit the pentagon.

.....despite the fact that they were trapped on a congested motorway in front of the Pentagon....

And what about the Helicopter?

Well come on then....anything?

To question the official story does not mean one must provide any alternative. In fact, the onus is on the story-tellers; while the listener has every right to point out discrepancies. Furthermore, it is entirely reasonable to wonder aloud at the lack of wingtip damage to the Pentagon. Seriously - what exactly is so awfully unreasonable about simply noticing these things or questioning the official story given?

I believe that if more people in the United States learned to question just a bit more, we might not be bombing Iraq, a country that had not a single thing to do with Sept 11 whatsoever.

But getting back to the damage done to the Pentagon: My burning question is - why doesn't the Pentagon or FBI just release the videos? (All who are honest should at least agree that the 5-frame clip does not constitute solid evidence) An actual video and not just a fuzzy 5-frame clip dated 9-12 would go a long ways towards proving their case. No?

With the burnt white car in the foreground? You can see wing "scars" in that pic.

........sure I can see the scars.......

Wonder why the ASCE couldn't?

Any explanation?

They were there ....were they not......

Those poles are designed to break away at the base for motorist's safety. whats your point?

:eyes:

Here is what the ASCE says....

The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure.

....but where does it say that it made this infamouse hole?

...and that is just refering to the front landing gear.....

As I said Vince.....

The ASCE makes no mention in it's report of what caused this hole?

Why?

sure is a hinky-dinky rinkey-dinky eensy-weency piece of gear. Why....something that small and frail could NEVER make a hole in a brick wall, even if it WAS traveling a a pretty impressive rate of speed with a bunch of mass behind it.

While not positive, I do not believe that individual standing next to the strut is 3 feet tall. Looks more like 5'8" to 6'. Making a rough estimate of that puppy to be about 12' tall. Weight? I have no flippin' idea, but pretty doggone heavy based on what it is supposed to do.

Seriously....do you have any....ANY...comparitive photograph of the strut inside the pentagon? I know there is a wider-angle view that gives it a bit more perspective, but we are talking a huge piece of gear here, designed to take the takeoff weight of a 757 (255,000 lbs) and a max landing weight of 210,000 lbs. The distance from the impact hole to the exit hole on the A-E drive is 310 feet. The landing strut was traveling at 500-700 feet per second at impact. Even with the intervening obstacles (walls, desks, furniture, etc) I have no problem believing that it retained enough momentum and mass to knock that hole.

Unfortunately you have no verifiable evidence. Nothing in the A-E Drive to come close to your puppy's height and weight. And wouldn't Pentagon officials have loved to feature that big boy. My...it would have been featured news along with frame by frame analysis as we see that 757 plow into the building.


That would have just about wrapped up the case. But the puny gathering at the Cwall hole just doesn't measure up.Which leaves you to just wildly speculate. But you must. I understand. Or else everything falls apart.

I award you the "Ironic Post of the Day" in the 9/11 forum.

One of the best ever. Really.

I'M the one with wild speculation? Am I the one talking about shaped charges? Am I the one who once brought up forward-spraying fuel sprayers on an aircraft flying at 350 knots? Am I the one talking about a missile firing into the Pentagon scant nanoseconds before a 220,000 body full of fuel slams into the building? Am I the one claiming that some "pod" with external piping that negates a landing gear nacelle is seen in a fuzzy and out of focus digitized image? Am I the one asking where is the 757? Am I the one claiming missiles were fired, as well, into WTC scant nanoseconds before impact? Am I the one embracing the offerings from a web page that also claims the Apollo landings never happened?

And you accuse ME of wild speculation??

LOL....sorry

:silly:

I believe that a plane very similar to a 757 was brought in with shaped charges planted in its cabin. The charges were timed to go off just prior to the plane hitting the building.

This explains:

1. The whitish coloration of the initial blast.
2. The massive infernal at the very fore of the building
3. The lack of identifiable fuselage parts in the A-E Drive.
4. The remarkable lack of fire destruction north of the entry site.
5. The extensive amount of fuel and fire south of the entry
point,on the building's facade and over the roof.
6. A viable explanation for those who reported more than one blast.
7. The lack of body parts on the Pentalawn and highway.

Here's what I see with your scenario.
1. Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
2. Most of the wings are snapped off. Parts of them are recovered as far as 100-200 yards away.The vertical stabilizer cuts its way through the E-ring before it snaps off leaving a large gash in the facade.
3. Parts of the nose- fuselage penetrates at least the first four rings.
4. The fuselage is severed in two but its velocity carries at least parts of the lower half into the A ring.
5. The plane doesn't explode immediately but a second to two seconds after entry.
6. The explosion is centered in the C-ring.
7. Fuel and blast from the explosion are pushed deep into the A-ring.
8. Fuel and debris are pushed well into the building as well as out the entry hole and E-ring.
9. Body parts are found as far as deep into the A-ring and as far out of the building as the Pentalawn.
10. A massive fire ensues spreading well into other parts of the Pentagon because the fire is hard to get to and therefire hard to contain.

Point #1 of your theory is "he whitish coloration of the initial blast." You claim it is proof of shaped charges planted in the cabin of the aircraft.

What does the color of the blast have to do with anything? I have read the french site you referenced, and the author had some explanation involving water in the air. Is that the basis for your point?

You might be interested to know that there actually is a photographic (and video) record of the detonation of explosive charges in an aircraft. In 1997 four explosive charges were detonated in a retired 747 in England, and the event was recorded on video.

If you want to view high resolution photographs and a video from the test, please go to this gentleman's site.

I have pasted a smaller version of one of the photographic strips at the web site below (the larger version is at the site). When the second frame is examined, the explosion from the aircraft does not exhibit the same sort of coloring you describe. Is there an explanation?

But you really don't have any clue about shaped charges.

1. Shaped charges are only used to cut/penetrate metal. Not efficient at busting concrete emplacements. A solid penetrator coupled with a delayed fuse is best. To make a 12' diameter hole in a concrete wall a "shaped charge" would have to be close to that diameter, say 10', and take up the entire fuselage width. It would have to be detonated several feet from the intended target, as any further than that severely degrades penetrating performance.

I would say your latter scenario is pretty close. Good Job!

To make a 12' diameter hole in a concrete wall a "shaped charge" would have to be close to that diameter, say 10', and take up the entire fuselage width.

Exactly.

Hit the Pentagon, but could not have damaged the building without a 10' high, custom made (cuz they don't exist for any reason), shaped charge warhead that would have had to have been placed behind the cockpit to fit?

So what would a 757 lacking this armament have done? Bounced off?

BTW that still doesnt explain the hole in the A-E ring. how would a second charge have goten through the building to detonate near that wall?

Never have I read such a weak argumentation.

Look at their explanation for the white plane... They don't care at all to have a look at the eyewitness accounts. Their explanation is in clear contradiction to ALL eyewitnesses of the white plane.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x28985


And look at the debris explanation.
Again no mentioning of the fact that ALL eyewitness contradict the official wind explanation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x32048

As soon as we looked up , we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.

"It didn't look like a commercial plane," Feegle said. "It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around, and it was gone. "
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)

The aircraft appeared to have an unusually tall vertical stabilizer”
(Capley Service, 9/13/01)

I said this article from the original post doesn't bother about the eyewitnesses.
Why do you call my post BS and quote some of the eyewitnesses I've listed in my thread? Do you think I've never read theses accounts???

You said: "Their explanation is in clear contradiction to ALL eyewitnesses of the white plane."

Their explanation of the raining debris. Just give me one eyewitness that supports this.

Their explanation of the white plane. The eyewitnesses see the plane before and after the crash. Do you see any explanation of this in this article.

And in any case what are the accounts in your post supposed to prove????

The more I check out the Popular Mechanics analysis(?) the more piss ass poor it becomes.

Take the following for example

Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

The great majority of CTers KNOW there was plane wreckage. This statement is nothing short of disinformation, portaying CTers as mindless blockheads.

So pentagostrike.co.uk is declared the official mouthpiece for all CTers on this issue.

This site would work effectively on the less inquisitive. Corraling them back into their pre conditioned government speak memtalities, away from the intellectual temptations of a bigger world. Like GBush said...don't worry,just go about your business,we'll take care of the evil terrorists or something to that effect. Be good little boys and girls and here is an excellent piece( of shit) on those silly conspiracy people.

is a leading poster here has said this about the WTC events:

And there is NO evidence whatsoever,
that a plane hit the World trade Center.
No plane debris was ever found and THAT is the main reason why the National Transportation Safety Board was unable to conduct an investigation.

Now I know that we can't hold up every DU post as the gospel God's honest truth, but there are some rather difficult-to-accept major-league
so-far-out-in-left-field-they-are-out-of-the-stadium claims from somewhat legitimate sites (AND DU posters) that I think this was the sort of stuff the PM article was talking about.

So why make this wacko your posterboy? That's disinformation in itself.

The PM article is an affront to scientific professionalism.

(quoting, mind you) is Dulcedecorum.

That sort of "mindless blockhead" (again, quoting) appears to be on more than a few webpages.

It has been stated more than a million times here and elsewhere - the extreme fringe elements who come up with these incredibly outlandish claims (such as there was no aircraft wreckage at the WTC or that missiles were fired into the buildings nanoseconds before impact) do nothing but distract from the real attempts at finding the truth and portray us as those "mindless blockheads" you spoke of earlier.

The PM article is an affront to scientific professionalism.

I agree. What makes those guys think they're scientists anyhow!

are you referring to?

(The 911 commission report?)

Which ones?

If you know anything about "the movement" you know it is not a real movement. It is a wide collection of people ideas and agenda's. One mans CT is another's truth these days. Some people that think Bush was LIHOP want the MIHOPers to STFU. Some MIHOPers want the collapse/no plane hit DC people to STFU. The only thing the agree on is that the gov has been lying about 9-11.

If asked in that broad sense many Americans maybe a majority would say that they do not trust the governments version of events on 9-11.

I tend to think that people should understand that 9-11 is a lie being used to further a very well documented agenda unfolding right before our eyes. An agenda as corrupt as the act of 9-11 itself. If that does not make you take a serious look at who the real enemy is I can't think of anything that would.

"I tend to think that people should understand that 9-11 is a lie being used to further a very well documented agenda unfolding right before our eyes. An agenda as corrupt as the act of 9-11 itself. If that does not make you take a serious look at who the real enemy is I can't think of anything that would."

In Richard Clarke's book, he says he came in to work on Sept 12th after barely an hour or so sleep expecting to finally get serious about taking on al-Qaeda, and he walks in and was completely shocked to hear not discussion on al-Qaeda, but -- on attacking Iraq and on finding ways to link al-Qaeda with Iraq. This is the very next morning after Sept 11th, the war planners were already devising a strategy for Iraq.

This administration clearly -- clearly -- has had an imperialist agenda of domination over resources in the Middle East, and the fact that it could only have been conceived and mobilized by a large-scale attack on American soil, should be enough for every concerned citizen to allow themselves to start asking some tough questions.

'Popular Mechanics' &
Other CIA Front Organizations
From Peter Wakefield Sault
sault@cyberware.co.uk
2-11-5

I have just read Mr Jim Hoffman's response at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
to the recent article in 'Popular Mechanics' at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
that tries to debunk the truth about 9/11 by the use of the 'straw man' tactic. Although everything in his response is quite correct and exposes the straw man for what it is, I feel Mr Hoffman was dealing with this particular issue at the wrong level. Approached from a different angle the article tells us who really was behind 9/11 and who is still desperately trying to cover it up. This is how it works:-

'Popular Mechanics' is published by the Hearst Corporation, proprietor (chairman of the board) George R. Hearst, grandson of William Randolph Hearst, sometime would-be builder of large aeroplanes.
http://www.business-magazines.com/prd1350.php
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_hearst.html

The president and CEO of Hearst Corporation is one Victor F. Ganzi, since June 1st, 2002. Mr Ganzi is also an officer/director of the Hearst Foundation. http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_ganzi.html http://www.oaklandwib.org/Images/ImageUploads/F82200432537.pdf
A close look at the titles of the books on the shelf behind Mr Ganzi in the photo (GANZI_2003_2_BW.jpg) reveals that some part of Mr Ganzi's early career was spent working for the owners of the Atlantic City Boardwalk and associated hotels and casinos; sometime friends of a certain Mr Frank Sinatra, as I recall.

Victor F. Ganzi is on the board of directors of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), alongside Columba Bush, wife of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush, President of the USA and son of George H.W. Bush, former DG of the CIA.
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/prevention/casa.html

Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security"
http://www.bens.org/what_threats_intel.html#intel - wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"

In October 2002, B.E.N.S. received a "CIA Agency Seal Medallion" for its work on the In-Q-Tel program.
http://www.bens.org/highlights_InQTelMedal.html

In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the 'private sector' .", making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values. http://www.in-q-tel.org/


So, we should all be most grateful to 'Popular Mechanics' and its new editor James Meigs for indirectly telling us who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were by its rather long-winded "blind 'em with science" attempt to suppress the truth of behalf of those perpetrators.

Kind Regards Peter Sault

I always love a good game of Six Degrees of the CIA. Well played, demo! And bonus points for working in Frank Sinatra...

Thank you. :P

JFK can't be far away.